Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2000/04/09/07:44:46
> > 2> Modified the last line to
> > $(COMPILE) -c -o $@ $<
> >
> > and it works! In fact BASH doesn't like anything within the `....`
>
> I find the last assertion hard to believe, at least in general. `...`
> works for me in many cases, at least in Bash 2.03. What version of Bash
> do you use?
I'm using BASH 2.03.
> So please post the details, I'm sure Mark would like to see them. If you
> can come up with a short Makefile to reproduce just this problem, please
> post it. If not, post all the relevant files.
Ok, I have a simple makefile and a script here. Usually in both the sets of
makefiles, the output "There is no bug in BASH!" is expected. However, the
first case doesn't show it while the second does! I tried the same thing on
Linux, but it works alright (shows the message both the times).
*****************************************
Makefile:
-----
SHELL = /bin/sh
all:
source='There is no bug in BASH!' \
$(SHELL) ./script \
echo `echo`script executed
*****************************************
Script:
-----
#!/bin/sh
echo $source
*******************************************
Makefile (version 2):
----
SHELL = /bin/sh
all:
source='There is no bug in BASH!' \
$(SHELL) ./script \
echo script executed
*******************************************
> I'd suggest to wait with the patches until we understand this weird
> problem.
Yes, I'll release a beta on Simtel once the work is done so
I won't need to write to the maintainer too many times.
- Raw text -